CHAMGAP
APPROVEDReviewed and approved by the Chamgap Editorial Team (2026-08-18). The draft was written by AI, the existence of all 1 cited sources was verified at the original page, and the verdict passed blind grading and adversarial audit. Methodology v0.7.
Verdict No. 2736 · Search date 2026-08-18 · Methodology v0.7

Filtered sunlight phototherapy,
does it really help with Bilirubin control noninferior to conventional electric phototherapy in term and late-preterm neonatal jaundice?

30-Second Summary
C
Evidence Grade C · 50 · Safety warning
Filtered sunlight was noninferior by treatment-day efficacy, but high temperature was more common
Temperature above 38.0°C was significantly more frequent, 5% versus 1% (P<.001). No safety withdrawal or exchange transfusion occurred, but clinical monitoring of temperature, hydration, and bilirubin is required.
What the
research shows
The grade is C with 50 points. A single Nigerian hospital trial randomized 447 infants and found efficacy on 93% versus 90% of evaluable treatment days with at least five hours of therapy, meeting the prespecified 10% noninferiority margin. The primary efficacy unit, however, was a treatment day rather than an infant, and the trial was open-label and noninferiority-designed. Temperature above 38.0°C was more frequent, 5% versus 1%.
What the
ads claim
Filtered sunlight may be an option where electric phototherapy is unreliable, but this was not ordinary sun exposure. The intervention required UV and heat-filtering films, repeated bilirubin and temperature measurements, and clinical supervision.
*

Useful facts when choosing a product

  • The registration is NCT01434810.
  • The films removed most ultraviolet and some infrared radiation while transmitting therapeutic blue light.
  • The primary efficacy unit was an evaluable treatment day with at least five hours of therapy, not a patient.
Gap Measurement · Verdict 2736 · C 50
What advertising claims
What independent, higher-quality research supports
△ GAP
01

What the research actually shows

The trial randomized 447 infants, 224 to filtered sunlight and 223 to conventional phototherapy. Fourteen received no treatment, and 49 of 433 treated infants withdrew early because of nighttime phototherapy, 30; parental request, 10; heavy rain, 5; or illness, 4. Although the paper describes intention-to-treat comparisons, the primary efficacy denominator was evaluable treatment days with 'at least 5 hours of phototherapy.' Efficacy was 93% versus 90% and met the 10% margin. Allocation used 'sequentially numbered sheets of paper, enclosed in opaque, sealed, matching, numbered envelopes.' The Thrasher Research Fund and NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences supported the trial, while Draeger Medical loaned the JM-103 bilirubinometer and CPFilms donated the films, so the support was not exclusively public or nonprofit.

02

Why this is classified as C (50)

A surrogate bilirubin endpoint, one trial, mixed material support, an open-label noninferiority design, and treatment-day analysis give C with 50 points.

Counterpoint. The margin was prespecified and efficacy was 93% versus 90%. C does not mean no activity; it reflects reliance on a treatment-day laboratory endpoint rather than patient-level clinical outcomes.

Rejudgment record. Cross-check applied — A treatment-day bilirubin endpoint rather than patient-level clinical events, one open-label noninferiority trial, and mixed nonprofit/public and manufacturer material support

Scoring profile behind this grade
EndpointSSurrogate marker - laboratory or imaging measures
ReplicationR1Single confirmatory trial
IndependenceI1Mixed funding sources
Effect sizeE+Meets the clinically important threshold

The scoring table and the verdict agree (C).

Sub-claim grades by effect

This ingredient is marketed for several effects. A single overall grade blends strong and weak claims together, so each effect is graded separately here. The overall grade reflects the strongest disconfirming or core claim.

Effect (sub-claim)GradeBasis
Bilirubin control noninferior to conventional phototherapyCEfficacy was 93% versus 90%, but the unit was a treatment day rather than a patient.

Cross-check — Codex and Claude

This verdict was drafted by Codex through literature review and source-existence checks, cross-checked through blind grading and adversarial audit, and settled by reapplying the methodology boundary rules. Cases with split grades were resolved through rejudgment.
03

Evidence Table

StudyDesignSampleFundingEndpointResultWeight
Study 1Single-center open-label randomized noninferiority trial in Nigeria49Support from the Thrasher Research Fund and NIH NCATS; device loan from Draeger Medical and film donation from CPFilmsBilirubin-control efficacy on evaluable treatment days with at least five hours of therapyEfficacious on 93% versus 90% of days, meeting the prespecified 10% margin; temperature above 38.0°C in 5% versus 1% (P<.001)Single noninferiority trial using treatment days as the analysis unit
§

Receipt — 1 References

All 1 cited sources were verified for existence at the original page (as of 2026-08-18).

Slusher TM, Olusanya BO, Vreman HJ, et al. A Randomized Trial of Phototherapy with Filtered Sunlight in African Neonates. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(12):1115-1124. PMID: 26376136. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1501074. NCT01434810.
checked
Draft and rewrite: Codex (AI) · Verification: Codex blind grading and adversarial audit · Final adjudication: Claude
Reviewed and approved: Chamgap Editorial Team · Approval date: 2026-08-18 · Corrections: none

Cite this verdict

Filtered sunlight phototherapy x neonatal jaundice Evidence Grade C card
[Chamgap] Filtered sunlight phototherapy x neonatal jaundice — Evidence Grade C·50. 1 cited sources checked. Source: https://chamgap.com/en/verdicts/general/filtered-sunlight-phototherapy-neonatal-jaundice/ · CC BY 4.0

CC BY 4.0 — free to use with attribution; do not distort grades, numbers, or verdict meaning.

!

What this document does and does not do

Chamgap is an information source. It reports what research has and has not confirmed; it does not tell readers what to take or buy. That decision belongs to readers and, when needed, medical or legal professionals. This verdict reflects literature available up to the search date and may change as new research appears. Nothing here is medical advice.